Featured AD 66 – Definitive Date of Preterism

JESUS said "the whole world" in Rev. 3:10. And ir aint happened yet.

"All the tribes of the earth" include MUCH-more than Israel ! And so does "every eye"! And those who pierced Him will see Him along with everyone else there.

No, he was referring to the persecution of the Christians of that time.

And every time I've explained that's false, and why.

No, Daniel told us what the first AOD would be, & Jesus made no changes to it. You ignore 2 Thess.2:4 & Rev. 13.

Only to prets.& Bible-changers.

The verses that wipe out all your stuff are Matt. 24:29-31 & Rev. 19:11-21. WHEN WERE THOSE FULFILLED??????????????????

 

Actually, Jesus said "oikumene", which was used to mean the Roman Empire. If Jesus meant the literal whole world, He would have used the word "kosmos". That "hour of testing" came upon them in the Jewish Wars of AD 66-70.

In the context, "all the tribes of the earth" only referred to Israel. They were the ones who pierced Him, and they understood that Christ had come in judgment upon them.

He was a fellow partaker because they were all going through the same persecution and tribulation. The language couldn't be more plain.

If you truly understood those passages, you would know that the AOD was the Roman armies surrounding Jerusalem. Jesus didn't change the meaning, but "futurists" have to change the meaning to fit their view.

Matthew 24:29-31 was fulfilled in AD 70. "The sun will be darkened..." is symbolic language. Heavenly bodies often symbolize earthly rulers and governments. Same language is found in Judges 5:19-20, Isaiah 13:9-10, Isaiah 34:4, and several other passages. This clearly points to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Likewise, Revelation 19:11-21 was fulfilled in AD 70. Since the context is filled with symbolism, this "lake of fire" is symbolic. This has the idea of complete destruction. Having said that, I believe Revelation 20:7 through the end of the book is still in our future.

 

I was under the impression that you had read an article or articles that brought you to your errant view. If that is not the case then it is actually worse as it is because you have misread/misunderstood the text of the bible yourself.

As for the towers, you do realize that they stood for more than 10 seconds after the planes hit them. I have read some of your posts and so am surprised that you would follow such a crackpot theory re the towers. But I imagine that you will hold to it.

If you mean understand Christianity as perterism then you truly are on the fringes.

 

I guess you have never seen towers brought down by an explosions before. That has got to be the lamest bit of evidence I have ever seen. The fact you are trying to use that to promote your theory with those photos shows just how weak your argument is. I do expect better of you.

 

Why does it bother you so much when someone points out the obvious flaw in your theory. Perhaps you should do a rethink of what you are posting.

 

@robycop3, Your main problem with this is a failure to understand that Scripture never speaks of a worldwide tribulation. You refuse to recognize that this was an event in our past instead of our future, and that it was limited to Jerusalem and the surrounding area. So, to borrow your phrase, MMRRPP! Wrong on all accounts. If Jesus had meant the whole world, He would have said so. However, He did not use "kosmos", but spoke in terms limited to Israel.

The armies of Luke 21:20 are the same as the AOD in Matthew 24:15. If you read both passages in context, you will see they are talking about the same thing.

When it comes to eschatology, you are woefully and deliberately ignorant. You ignore what is obvious to Preterists and prefer your Futurist fantasies over what is clearly taught in Scripture.

Revelation 19:11-21 speaks of Christ's victory over the Beast & False Prophet. This is not the same as the 2nd Coming, when He will rule the earth.

How is it that a guy as smart as you are can fail to see the symbolism in prophecy. I have provided many examples of symbolic language in our discussions, and Revelation is no different. You have to stick to your wooden literal view, otherwise your futurist house of cards falls apart.

 

Why, it DOES, too! Rev. 3:10 !

I refuse to recognize it because it's NOT TRUE. There have been much-greater tribs than that of Jerusalem. And J was soon rebuilt. A much-greater punishmnt came upon the Jews in 135-136 AD when Hadrian booted them from their land & gave it to the Philistines. (Today's Palestinians) It was JESUS, not robycop, who said it'd hit the whole world.

He DID say so !

He didn't once mention Israel. And the term He used means "the whole inhabited earth".

No, they're NOT !.Jesus said when you see J surrounded by armies, flee at once.History shows that Vespasian & his army surrounded J, but left when wird came to him that Nero was dead & Galba was now Caesar.It was a full 9 months til Titus came with an army that sacked J & destroyed the temple. Thus, there was PLENTY of time to flee. So, this must be a future event.

The only thing obvious to prets is an illusionary world built upon their own fantasies & ignorance of Scripture & history.

Not yet happened. And it DOES clearly speak of His return.

Symbolism is the great pret escape route-"I can't find it in history, but it happened! Threfore, it must be symbolic!" " Although Nero died & was not cast alive into hell, he was still the beast. Therefore, being cast alive into hell must be symbolic!" And so is adding to God's word by giving their own meanings to "inconvenient" Scriptures-I. E. "the whole world in Rev. 3:10 ACTUALLY means only Jerusalem!"
As for the trib, Jesus said He'd return IMMEDIATELY AFTER it ! So, where is He now, if the trib has already occurred????????????????????????????????
PRETERISM - PHONY AS A FORD CORVETTE ! !

 

In Revelation 3:10, Jesus speaks of the hour of testing that is about to (meaning "this is going to happen really soon") come upon the oikumene, which always refers to the Roman Empire when used in the New Testament.

It's not a question of the scope of the tribulation, but of its uniqueness. This tribulation included the destruction of the Temple and effectively ended the Old Covenant system of sacrifices. This is what Jesus prophesied.

Actually, it's futurists who hold to this illusion that there will be a future worldwide tribulation with fantastic cosmic events that were only meant to be understood symbolically.

While Christ's return is definitely in our future, the Beast and False Prophet have already been dealt with.

You always confuse this with the 2nd Coming. Jesus came in judgment, just as God came in judgment upon various nations throughout the Old Testament.

FUTURISM - PHONY AS A CHEVY MUSTANG!!

 

Here is a good article about the book of Revelation and when it was written. Since Preterist have placed the letter in the 60's perhaps this will help clear up some of their errant ideas.

Part 1
Traditionally, the book of Revelation has been dated near the end of the first century, around A.D. 96. Some writers, however, have advanced the preterist (from a Latin word meaning “that which is past”) view, contending that the Apocalypse was penned around A.D. 68 or 69, and thus the thrust of the book is supposed to relate to the impending destruction of Jerusalem (A.D. 70).

A few prominent names have been associated with this position (e.g., Stuart, Schaff, Lightfoot, Foy E. Wallace Jr.), and for a brief time it was popular with certain scholars. James Orr has observed, however, that recent criticism has reverted to the traditional date of near A.D. 96 (1939, 2584). In fact, the evidence for the later date is extremely strong.

In view of some of the bizarre theories that have surfaced in recent times (e.g., the notion that all end-time prophecies were fulfilled with the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70), which are dependent upon the preterist interpretation, we offer the following.



External Evidence
The external evidence for the late dating of Revelation is of the highest quality.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus (A.D. 180), a student of Polycarp (who was a disciple of the apostle John), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30). The testimony of Irenaeus, not far removed from the apostolic age, is first rate. He places the book near the end of Domitian’s reign, and that ruler died in A.D. 96. Irenaeus seems to be unaware of any other view for the date of the book of Revelation.

Clement of Alexandria
Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 155-215) says that John returned from the isle of Patmos “after the tyrant was dead” (Who Is the Rich Man? 42), and Eusebius, known as the “Father of Church History,” identifies the “tyrant” as Domitian (Ecclesiastical History III.23).

Even Moses Stuart, America’s most prominent preterist, admitted that the “tyrant here meant is probably Domitian.” Within this narrative, Clement further speaks of John as an “old man.” If Revelation was written prior to A.D. 70, it would scarcely seem appropriate to refer to John as an old man, since he would only have been in his early sixties at this time.

Victorinus
Victorinus (late third century), author of the earliest commentary on the book of Revelation, wrote:

When John said these things, he was in the island of Patmos, condemned to the mines by Caesar Domitian. There he saw the Apocalypse; and when at length grown old, he thought that he should receive his release by suffering; but Domitian being killed, he was liberated (Commentary on Revelation 10:11).
Jerome
Jerome (A.D. 340-420) said,

In the fourteenth then after Nero, Domitian having raised up a second persecution, he [John] was banished to the island of Patmos, and wrote the Apocalypse (Lives of Illustrious Men 9).
To all of this may be added the comment of Eusebius, who contends that the historical tradition of his time (A.D. 324) placed the writing of the Apocalypse at the close of Domitian’s reign (III.18). McClintock and Strong, in contending for the later date, declare that “there is no mention in any writer of the first three centuries of any other time or place” (1969, 1064). Upon the basis of external evidence, therefore, there is little contest between the earlier and later dates.

Internal Evidence
The contents of the book of Revelation also suggest a late date, as the following observations indicate.

The spiritual conditions of the churches described in Revelation chapters two and three more readily harmonize with the late date.

The church in Ephesus, for instance, was not founded by Paul until the latter part of Claudius’s reign: and when he wrote to them from Rome, A.D. 61, instead of reproving them for any want of love, he commends their love and faith (Eph. 1:15) (Horne 1841, 382).

Yet, when Revelation was written, in spite of the fact that the Ephesians had been patient (2:2), they had also left their first love (v. 4), and this would seem to require a greater length of time than seven or eight years, as suggested by the early date.

Another internal evidence of a late date is that this book was penned while John was banished to Patmos (1:9). It is well known that Domitian had a fondness for this type of persecution. If, however, this persecution is dated in the time of Nero, how does one account for the fact that Peter and Paul are murdered, yet John is only exiled to an island? (Eusebius III.18; II.25).

Then consider this fact. The church at Laodicea is represented as existing under conditions of great wealth. She was rich and had need of nothing (3:17). In A.D. 60, though, Laodicea had been almost entirely destroyed by an earthquake. Surely it would have required more than eight or nine years for that city to have risen again to the state of affluence described in Revelation.

The doctrinal departures described in Revelation would appear to better fit the later dating. For example, the Nicolaitans (2:6, 15) were a full-fledged sect at the time of John’s writing, whereas they had only been hinted at in general terms in 2 Peter and Jude, which were written possibly around A.D. 65-66.

Persecution for professing the Christian faith is evidenced in those early letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. For instance, Antipas had been killed in Pergamum (2:13). It is generally agreed among scholars, however, that Nero’s persecution was mostly confined to Rome; further, it was not for religious reasons (Harrison 1964, 446).

 

Part 2

Arguments for the Early Date Answered
In the absence of external evidence in support of an early date for Revelation, preterists generally rely on what they perceive as internal support for their view.

Writing Style Differences
It is contended that the Gospel of John has a much smoother style of Greek than does the Apocalypse. Thus, the latter must have been written many years prior to the fourth Gospel—when the apostle was not so experienced in the literary employment of Greek.

In answer to this argument, we cite R. H. Gundry:

Archaeological discoveries and literary studies have recently demonstrated that along with Aramaic and Hebrew, Greek was commonly spoken among first century Palestinians. Thus John must have known and used Greek since his youth (1970, 365).
B. B. Warfield contends that:

the Apocalypse betrays no lack of knowledge of, or command over, Greek syntax or vocabulary; the difference lies, rather, in the manner in which a language well in hand is used, in style, properly so called; and the solution of it must turn on psychological, not chronological, considerations (Schaff and Herzog 1891, 2036).
R. H. Charles, author of the commentary on Revelation in the International Critical Commentary series, and perhaps the greatest expert on apocalyptic literature, regarded the so-called bad grammar as deliberate, for purposes of emphasis, and consistent with the citation of numerous Old Testament passages (Gundry, 365). It might be noted that in the 404 verses of Revelation, Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament gives over five hundred references and allusions to the Old Testament.

Finally, as McClintock and Strong point out:

It may be admitted that the Revelation has many surprising grammatical peculiarities. But much of this is accounted for by the fact that it was probably written down, as it was seen, “in the Spirit,” while the ideas, in all their novelty and vastness, filled the apostle’s mind, and rendered him less capable of attending to forms of speech. His Gospel and Epistles, on the other hand, were composed equally under divine influence, but an influence of a gentler, more ordinary kind, with much care, after long deliberation, after frequent recollection and recital of the facts, and deep pondering of the doctrinal truths which they involve (1064).
No Mention of Jerusalem’s Destruction
It is claimed that Revelation must have been penned before A.D. 70 since it has no allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem; rather, it is alleged, it represents both the city and the temple as still standing.

In response we note the following points.

First, if John wrote this work near A.D. 96, there would be little need to focus upon the destruction of Jerusalem since the lessons of that catastrophe would have been well learned in the preceding quarter of a century.

However, it must be noted that some scholars see a veiled reference to Jerusalem’s destruction in 11:8, where “the great city,” in which the Savior was crucified (Jerusalem), is called Sodom—not merely because of wickedness, but due to the fact that it was a destroyed city of evil (Zahn 1973, 306).

Second, the contention that the literal city and temple were still standing, based upon chapter eleven, ignores the express symbolic nature of the narrative. Salmon says that it is:

difficult to understand how anyone could have imagined that the vision represents the temple as still standing. For the whole scene is laid in heaven, and the temple that is measured is the heavenly temple (11:19; 15:5). We have only to compare this vision with the parallel vision of a measuring-reed seen by Ezekiel (ch. 40), in which the prophet is commanded to measure—surely not the city which it is stated had been demolished fourteen years previously, but the city of the future seen by the prophet in vision (1904, 238).
Nero Associated with 666
Some argue for an early date of the Apocalypse by asserting that the enigmatic 666 (13:18) is a reference to Nero. This is possible only by pursuing the most irresponsible form of exegesis.

To come up with such an interpretation one must:

1. add the title “Caesar” to Nero’s name;
   
   
2. compute the letter-number arrangement on the basis of Hebrew, whereas the book was written in Greek; and
   
   
3. alter the spelling of “Caesar” by dropping the yodh in the Hebrew.
   

All of this reveals a truly desperate attempt to find a reference to Nero in the text.

Additionally, Leon Morris has pointed out that Irenaeus discussed a number of possibilities for deciphering the 666, but he did not even include Nero in his list, let alone regard this as a likely conjecture (1980, 38). Noted critic Theodor Zahn observed that Nero was not even suggested as a possibility until the year 1831 (447).

In view of the foregoing evidence, a very strong case can be made for dating Revelation at about A.D. 96. Accordingly, the theory of realized eschatology, which is grounded upon the necessity of the Apocalypse having been written prior to A.D. 70, is shown to be without the necessary foundation for its successful defense, to say nothing of the scores of other scriptural difficulties that plague it.

Jackson, Wayne. "When Was the Book of Revelation Written?" ChristianCourier.com. Access date: September 11, 2022. When Was the Book of Revelation Written?

 

@robycop3, you said "No, He DOESN'T ! The NKJV & KJV read "shall come". The NIV reads "will come". You're proven WRONG yet again !"
Of course it reads "shall come". Since this was written before that "hour of testing" came upon the oikumene, it was still future to John's original audience. This proves you wrong once again.

You said "Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple separately. Nowhere does He include it in the trib."
Where did you get that ridiculous notion? The Olivet Discourse is not broken up into different timelines. The entire prophecy was fulfilled from AD 66-70.

I have proven many times that there will never be a future worldwide Great Tribulation. This is purely a fantasy brought about by misunderstanding what the Bible says. Scripture clearly shows this tribulation was limited to Judah.

You said " You've been proven wrong at every turn. You prets have a major credibility problem!"
That's laughable. I've proven the errors in "futurist" eschatology many times. You have eyes but don't see; you have a brain but you don't think. The "futurist" view is nothing more than fantasy and failure to properly interpret Scripture. In short, this view stems from eisegesis, not proper exegesis.

 

Interesting article, but nothing I hadn't run across before. Ken Gentry answered those objections quite thoroughly in his book "Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation". This is 478 pages, and well worth reading to clear up the misconceptions about the late date writing of Revelation.

Irenaeus is often cited as a source to prove the late date. This is based on a very obscure quote and a lot of assumption. Furthermore, Irenaeus also claimed that Jesus lived into his 50s. He is not a reliable source for dating Revelation. Other Early Church Fathers either just echo Irenaeus or express a similar opinion. Opinions are a dime a dozen, so I will rely on internal evidence. Evidence for late date authorship is weak, but it's strong for early date authorship.

The argument that "Caesar" must be added to Nero's name is absurd. It's nothing more than an attempt to disprove that Nero's name fits the number of the Beast. The context of Revelation, especially 17:10, makes it clear that Nero was the 6th king, and he would be followed by Galba, who only ruled a short time.

How can Jackson so easily dismiss the absence of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple so easily? That would be like writing a history of America and leaving out 9/11. While Revelation is obviously not a history book, it is a book of prophecy. This was huge to the 1st Century Jews and Christians. If the Book of Revelation was written in the mid-90s, around 25 years after the destruction of the Temple and the Holy City, it is very odd that John did not mention these events. Since none of the other New Testament books record the massacre of the city and the destruction of the Temple, it is reasonable to believe all the books were written prior to AD 70.

The internal time-related passages of Revelation indicate that the events it foretells will come to pass shortly. (See Revelation 1:1,3; 22:20, 30) If read in its natural, unbiased sense, we can easily conclude that Revelation was not written about events that would take place 2,000 years in their future. Speaking of time, compare Daniel 12:4 ("seal up the vision, for it is a long way off") with Revelation 22:10 (do not seal up the vision "because it concerns things which must shortly come to pass").

Another reason to believe the Book of Revelation was written before A.D. 70 is because Jerome noted in his writings that John was seen in A.D. 96. He was so old and infirm that “he was with difficulty carried to the church, and could speak only a few words to the people”. We must put this together with Revelation 10:11, which says John must “prophesy again concerning many peoples and nations and tongues and kings.” It is difficult to imagine John would be able to speak to many nations and kings in the mid-90s since he was already old and feeble.

At the very least, I hope this provided some encouragement to keep an open mind to the possibility of an early date writing of Revelation.

 

I do not have a dog in this fight. I just think all the huff and puff over your view or for that matter any of the views as to when Christ will return is just that huff and puff.
When I see things like "I proved" I just think, really! Since we are still here and this does not look like paradise to me I would say your view has some serious problems to overcome. As to when He will return per, mid, post it does not raise far up the concern list. I just know that we should be doing His work until He does call us home or He returns.

I have had these discussions before, where people claimed as you do. That view just does not hold water as far as I can see.

 

HORSE FEATHERS ! It hasn't yet come. If it had, the parousia would've occurred, & Jesus would still be physically here, ruling the world. Remember, He said, "IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE TRIBULATION...".

You said "Jesus prophesied the destruction of the temple separately. Nowhere does He include it in the trib."
Where did you get that ridiculous notion? The Olivet Discourse is not broken up into different timelines. The entire prophecy was fulfilled from AD 66-70.
Newp ! The disciples were admiring the temple's buildings aloud to Jesus when He said, "Truli, I tell you, not one stone here will be left upon another. All will be thrown down." Then, they went upon the mount, & the disciples asked Him, "When shall these things be?" This was after He prophesied the temple's destruction.

No, you haven't proven anything except you don't believe Scripture as written & you like to make up new meanings for it that fit your guru Gentry's garbage.

You said " You've been proven wrong at every turn. You prets have a major credibility problem!"

BAH ! HUMBUG ! You can't tell us who the beast was (It was NOT Nero!), what the marka the beast looked like, who the false prophet was, when all life in the Mediterranean Sea died, etc. etc.
You believe Gentry & other quax insteada Jesus.

We have repeatedly gone over this stuff. Scripture and history have proven you wrong.

LET THE OTHER READERS JUDGE BETWEEN US, FROM READING PAST THREADS, AS WELL AS THIS ONE ! !

 

To be completely honest, I mostly use "proven" in my discussions with Roby because he uses that term so freely. My point with him is that I've no more "proven" it to him than he has to me. If any view of eschatology could actually be proven, we wouldn't have so many disagreements. You are right - He will return in His own good time. All our discussions about the timing doesn't make a dime's worth of difference. Our main focus should remain on winning the lost to Christ. Thank you for that gentle reminder, Brother.

 

That, my friend, is the only statement in your post where I wholeheartedly agree. We come at this from completely different views, and neither of us is likely to change the other's mind. You believe my view is flawed, and I believe your view is flawed. We are at an impasse, and that's okay. It doesn't have any bearing on our salvation, so we shouldn't let our different views of the "End Times" divide us.